Multicore
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2021
- Messages
- 1,792
- Likes
- 1,969
Sorry, there's a few steps of argumentation that I completely glossed over that are needed to tie honor into my argument (#187). Lemmy see if I can fix that real quick.I also think that the debate is not about honor. You can see exactly the same kind of behavior in other hobbies, where science was introduced, often conflicting with traditional wisdom.
History, anthropology and psychology recognize a pattern of human behavior in which conflict exists that, to that uninvolved observer, seems disproportionate to the issues being fought over (cf. schismogenesis and narcissism of small differences). Rel_g_on and pol_t_cs are forbidden on ASR so I chose the example of sports and sports fans. Let's consider sports like football (either version) a modern ritualized, relatively safe version of the ancient practices of single/team combat and such. Owing to some history there exists a schism that divides people into opposing sides of the fight. Such fights can go on for a very long time. I grew up in Glasgow so the Old Firm is a canonical example for me.
Someone who has been publicly involved in such a fight, either as combatant or cheering/jeering on the sidelines, could choose to switch sides or to abandon their involvement in the fight. But that could entail a significant loss of the individual's social capital. That's the honor I was talking about: the individual's personal subjective sense of their reputation built on fighting the fight thus far.